P-47D !!!

November 22, 2017

D9 will have fun with it at altitude. It’ll be a close match up especially if the fight is around 11-12km. Plus you won’t have 50 P47s bouncing a staffel of inexperienced rookies.

To be honest I can’t see many flying the thing as a high altitude fighter, or anything at a huge height. Most servers will have ground attack as a priority and wthout heavy bombers flying at 5km the action will drag downwards and into the hands of the Tempest and 109s. There might be the odd bomber at altitude I suppose but most pilots in a Tempest could take out a He111 or Ju88 in one pass - 4 Hispanos will make a real mess.

It’ll be fun and interesting but will mostly be a Jabo, or at least it will for me.

von Tom

Whats the D9 high alt performance? I know it was designed to be better up high than its predecessors but I was under the impression that it still didnt perform as well up high as the P-47 or P-51.

I still feel that the advantage will go to the Jug but I'm very interested to see how they stack up against each other high up.

I'll certainly be flying the Jug up high unless I'm on a ground attack mission. I'd rather be where my aircraft excels, dont really want to put myself in any unnecessary disadvantage..

The only aircraft that I'm really concerned about is the k4 and this is based solely on my experience in DCS. The D9 never really gave me any trouble up high, it was always the k4.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Legioneod

November 23, 2017

Thanks for the reply,

I dont think that US planes are bad, but as I wrote above I was never really interested in US and planes mainly for their (for me) strange look.

Judging only by the look of the P47 and Tempest or P38 I would say they must be a cannon fodder for the late war Bf109 in the hands of skillful pilot. (in horizontal fight).

How good was P51 in turning fight against Bf109 and Fw190D? Of course German or US veteran will say " it was easy to stay behind the enemy tail"

The Tempest isn't an American aircraft (British through and through) but versus German aircraft it performed favourably at low and medium altitudes.

According to the Air Ministry, the Tempest performs about as well as a Mustang, FW190 of Bf109G in horizontal turns. At speed it has particularly effective controls making it a good high speed performer. Especially when spring tabs are fitted to the ailerons.

The Tempest is very fast, heavy hitting, and has exceptional all around visibility. It'd be a big mistake to consider it cannon fodder.

I'd also be wary of P-51s and P-47s. At medium altitudes they are strongly competitive with the best German fighters. At very high altitudes they are superior in most ways. The P-47 can hit altitudes I don't think very much else can even fly at.

November 23, 2017

The Tempest is very fast, heavy hitting, and has exceptional all around visibility. It'd be a big mistake to consider it cannon fodder.

This. The Tempest was simply the highest performing Allied fighter at low altitudes. It is at low altitudes, what the Spit XIV was at medium to high altitudes.

It is of note that the Tempest will NOT turn with neither the 109 (G or K) or the 190 (A or D) in many situations. The instantaneous turn of both German aircraft are such that they will easily get to the tail of the Thempest if that one is flown below 550 km/h. In contrast especially to the 109, the Tempest can well be kept at higher speeds, pretty much negating most of the otherwise significant superior maneuvarbility of the 109. Many allied pilots met their end when they got too slow flying at treetop altitude under the very low cloud ceiling, resortung to flying full turns trying to evade 190D fighters. Very soon the 190 would catch up. That the 190D-9 can also be controlled well at speeds around 600 km/h made it the more dangerous of the two. It is much better suited to fight the Tempest at its own game than the 109, even if it has a markedly lower top speed down low. Still, the 109 was not taken lightly, as you could never know who was at the controls. often, they could see a plane was flown by an Experte, just by the way "they were flapping with their wings", looking around. The only solution that kept one alive was to simply let them be and care for the "free food". Although several pilots had a try at those leaders, was outcome was usually inevitable. There were still plenty of occasions where one didn't have the luxury of choosing your work and one better saved his luck for these moments.

Also in the game, the Tempest should be kept at speeds where the 109's handling (see thread "elevator effectiveness") is seriously degrading. It should be powerful enough to maintain that speed during the fight. That is how it has to be flown.

As they were cruising very fast, the best startegy was (back then) to make a direct high speed attack run and should enemy planes manage to follow, disengage with a downward spiral, maintaining full speed, followed by a zoom climb back to altitude at full power. Another strategy was plain vulching, best done with a wing man in Gordon Gollob manner. You learn of enemy aircraft presence, just go straight to their base and wait beneath the clouds until they come in for landing. Rheine-Hopsten was of the main places to go for such venture around New Year 1945. Once you see Krauts in the pattern, vulch them. The presence of a wing man is helpful, as the Flak would usually be better prepared to take out the following aircraft and concentrating (with good results) on that one. The highest scoring Tempest ace, Bay Adams made almost his entire tally that way, trading his wing man for a kill. I can only speculate that this is the reason why Clostermann (JF-E) in the drawing below chose not to be wing man to Adams (JF-K)

Two things excelled on the tempest besides its very heavy punch: engine power and ailerons. The ailerons were assisted by tabs making them very effective even beyond 400 mph.

The great advantage of the high combat speed (MUCH higehr than the 109 and a tad higher than the 190D-9) was reinforced by its benign handling near critical Mach. There was hardly and shaking or freezing up of the controls.

Otherwise, in absolute handling performance, the plane was found to be rather on par with the later P-47 variants, that one roughly being equal in power and weight.

Edited November 23, 2017 by ZachariasX

November 23, 2017

From what i found is that the tempest has better turn performance than the 109G, let alone the K. talking about low speed approaching stalls the tempest is able to slightly outrun 109G. Tests indicate it was nearly on par with typhoon, while the spitfireXIV was in the lead. and a slight edge with the Fw. "bare in mind this is the early tempest"

"source" According to instructions from Air Ministry (D.A.T.) and from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., letter reference ADGB/S.29156/Air Tactics dated 29th February 1944 refers, tactical trials have been completed with the Tempest V. Aircraft No. JN.737 was delivered by the Hawker Aircraft Company on 8th January 1944 and was operationally loaded. The operational weight is 11,400 lbs.

Edited November 23, 2017 by SirScorpion

November 23, 2017

It is of note that the Tempest will NOT turn with neither the 109 (G or K) or the 190 (A or D) in many situations.

Can't see how this is going to be the case? I thought both the 109 and the 190 had higher wing loading (much more in the 190's case) and while the Tempest is a bit heavier it has got hundreds more horsepower to pull it round a turn? Enlighten me please

November 23, 2017

Can't see how this is going to be the case? I thought both the 109 and the 190 had higher wing loading (much more in the 190's case) and while the Tempest is a bit heavier it has got hundreds more horsepower to pull it round a turn? Enlighten me please

May have to do with its Laminar flow wing.

"The Tempest arose from Hawker’s desire to apply a new, thin wing to the Typhoon in order to enhance performance. The Tempest V combined the new semi-elliptical wing with the Typhoon airframe and Sabre II engine. The new wing was five inches thinner at the root with the maximum depth of the new section occurring farther back, at 37.5% of the chord, while the thickness/chord ratio was reduced 14.5% at the root tapering to 10% at the tip."

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html

"The Typhoon’s wing, using a NACA 4 digit series wing section, had a maximum thickness to chord ratio of 19.5% (root) to 12% (tip). In March 1940, engineers were assigned to investigate the new low drag laminar flow wing developed by NACA in the United States, which had been used in the new North American P-51 Mustang. A laminar flow wing adopted for the Tempest series had a maximum thickness to chord ratio of 14.5% at the root, tapering to 10% at the tip. The maximum thickness of the Tempest wing was set further back at 37.5% of the chord versus 30% for the Typhoon’s wing."

https://www.albentley-drawings.com/drawings/british-aircraft/hawker-tempest/hawker-tempest/

Edited November 23, 2017 by bzc3lk

November 23, 2017

Hmmm perhaps but wouldn't the fact even though the wings are thinner they are still bigger overall than the 109/190 hence lower wing loading and less thick in certain areas could just have been to decrease drag and increasing performance? Correct me if I am only an amateur at avionics

edit: also very sorry about thread derail wooops

Edited November 23, 2017 by Bullets

November 23, 2017

Whats the D9 high alt performance? I know it was designed to be better up high than its predecessors but I was under the impression that it still didnt perform as well up high as the P-47 or P-51.

I still feel that the advantage will go to the Jug but I'm very interested to see how they stack up against each other high up.

P47 higher ceiling - 13km but D9 faster up high. The wing loading up high will be very important and the P47 wins there. As always height/energy should determine who wins, and the P47 can of course spray and pray - any damage from a .50cal will be nasty at alt.

I don't have K4 specs to hand but can look through my books. I expect it to be somewhere between the D9 and P47.

From Wiki:

Specifications (P-47D-30 Thunderbolt)

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.42 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
Loaded weight: 12,731 lb (5,774.48 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59B twin-row radial engine, 2,600 hp (1,938 kW)

Performance

Maximum speed: 433 mph at 29,000 ft (697 km/h at 8,839 m)
Range: 800 mi combat, 1,800 mi ferry (1,290 km / 2,900 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,180 ft/min (16.15 m/s)
Wing loading: 42.43 lb/ft² (207 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.204 hp/lb (335 W/kg)

Armament

8 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3400 rounds)
Up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs
10 × 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets

Specifications (Fw 190 D-9)

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 10.20 m (33 ft 5½ in)
Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)
Height: 3.35 m (11 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,490 kg (7,694 lb)
Loaded weight: 4,270 kg (9,413 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,840 kg (10,670 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Junkers Jumo 213A 12-cylinder inverted-Vee piston engine, 1,287 kW (1,750 PS, 1,726 hp) or 1,508 kW (2,050 PS, 2,022 hp) with boost (model 213E)

Performance

Maximum speed: 685 km/h (426 mph) at 6,600 m (21,655 ft), 710 km/h (440 mph) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
Range: 835 km (519 mi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,370 ft)
Rate of climb: 17 m/s (3,300 ft/min)
Wing loading: 233 kg/m² (47.7 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.30–0.35 kW/kg (0.18–0.22 hp/lb)

Armament

Guns: (all synchronized to fire through propeller arc)
- 2 × 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns with 475 rpg
- 2 × 20 mm MG 151 cannons with 250 rpg in the wing root
Bombs: 1 × 500 kg (1,102 lb) SC 500 bomb (optional)

von Tom

Edited November 23, 2017 by von_Tom

November 23, 2017

Can't see how this is going to be the case?

From what i found is that the tempest has better turn performance than the 109G, let alone the K.

This is correct. But it requires high speeds, the thing the Tempest is made for. As soon as you get slower in the Tempest, both 190 and the 109 will turn into the Tempest. At combat speed, the high power of the Tempest will provide a suitable substained turn.

November 23, 2017

This is correct. But it requires high speeds, the thing the Tempest is made for. As soon as you get slower in the Tempest, both 190 and the 109 will turn into the Tempest. At combat speed, the high power of the Tempest will provide a suitable substained turn.

Ah okay I get you now! So keep your manoeuvres fast and you shouldn't have an issue with out turning your opponent!

November 23, 2017

I'd imagine a D-28 or D-30.

The P-47 in bodenplatte is the equivalent of the P-40 in BoM/BoS. Great firepower(~30 seconds of 50 cals spraying), can't run, can't climb and the Infamous engine destruction after 30 seconds of use. Ah yes, the plane where you can destroy your engine faster than an enemy can destroy it by bombarding 20mm HE into it. This is the absolute worst time to be flying a P-47 in Europe, low altitude combat against Me-262 K4s and D9s. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the P-47, but there is no reason to get all hyped about its performance.

Near the wars end we'd have the P-47M, but in early 1945 the Ms weren't in any reliable state to bring into combat. IIRC the 56FG started receiving them during the end of 1944. Early 1944 would've been an ideal time for the P-47 where its performance was stellar. I find it interesting that they skipped a potential game, Battle of Big Week?. Where there'd beP-47Ds, Fw-190As, P-51Bs, Bf-109G6s... very very competitive playing field for all aircraft. Also an interesting time where the Luftwaffe was on its last legs. High altitude combat defending the bombers all the way down to the deck bringing the fight to the Luftwaffe. I assume they choose bodenplatte for financial reasons, K4, D9, Tempest and Me-262.

November 23, 2017

Battle of Big Week?

Currently, there is no way we can have 8th AF operations on our small maps. Also including hunderts of 4 engine hevy bombers will not work. Jason mentined that specifically in previous comments.

can't run, can't climb and the Infamous engine destruction after 30 seconds of use.

Besides, a P-47D with water injection will follow an Fw-190 upwards from the deck. It is a rugged, fast and very powerful aircraft. And unluckily for the Fw-190 et .al., hardly ever found alone. It also has a very good roll rate at high speeds. 2300 hp wih ADI basically offsets the P-47's added weight over the Fw-190A, putting it in a similar thrust/weight ratio. And the engine doesn't self-destruct after 30 seconds of use. Atleast not in the real aircraft.

November 23, 2017

November 23, 2017

I'd imagine a D-28 or D-30.

The P-47 in bodenplatte is the equivalent of the P-40 in BoM/BoS. Great firepower(~30 seconds of 50 cals spraying), can't run, can't climb and the Infamous engine destruction after 30 seconds of use. Ah yes, the plane where you can destroy your engine faster than an enemy can destroy it by bombarding 20mm HE into it. This is the absolute worst time to be flying a P-47 in Europe, low altitude combat against Me-262 K4s and D9s. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the P-47, but there is no reason to get all hyped about its performance.

Near the wars end we'd have the P-47M, but in early 1945 the Ms weren't in any reliable state to bring into combat. IIRC the 56FG started receiving them during the end of 1944. Early 1944 would've been an ideal time for the P-47 where its performance was stellar. I find it interesting that they skipped a potential game, Battle of Big Week?. Where there'd beP-47Ds, Fw-190As, P-51Bs, Bf-109G6s... very very competitive playing field for all aircraft. Also an interesting time where the Luftwaffe was on its last legs. High altitude combat defending the bombers all the way down to the deck bringing the fight to the Luftwaffe. I assume they choose bodenplatte for financial reasons, K4, D9, Tempest and Me-262.

The P-47 engine was one of the most durable engines in the US arsenal, so I dont see why you think it will be a glass engine like the P-40. Also, the P-47 can run just fine, up high it will be fine but down low it will be vulnerable. It can also outdive everything but the 262 so as long as the Jug pilot is smart he can avoid most fights if he wants. He can also outroll everything but the 190 so thats also a good advantage.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Legioneod

November 23, 2017

I thought the tempest and p51 were decent high altitude planes as well?

Tempest had poor high altitude performance, best in the mud

November 23, 2017

Currently, there is no way we can have 8th AF operations on our small maps. Also including hunderts of 4 engine hevy bombers will not work. Jason mentined that specifically in previous comments.

Besides, a P-47D with water injection will follow an Fw-190 upwards from the deck. It is a rugged, fast and very powerful aircraft. And unluckily for the Fw-190 et .al., hardly ever found alone. It also has a very good roll rate at high speeds. 2300 hp wih ADI basically offsets the P-47's added weight over the Fw-190A, putting it in a similar thrust/weight ratio. And the engine doesn't self-destruct after 30 seconds of use. Atleast not in the real aircraft.

Well that's extremely unfortunate.

P-47D at 2600HP not 2300HP, this isn't early 1944. Rugged yes, but 30mm doesn't really care what its shooting at .

The P-47 will be a very competitive appoint against the G-14 and A-8. However the D9 and K4 tell a different story. Unless the servers limit the access of D9s and K4s by a significant margin than the P-47 will be vastly out classed. Regarding P/W ratio, Fw-190A8s 0.189hp/lb vs P-47Ds 0.204hp/lb, I'm not exactly sure what the Fw-190's exhaust thrust is in HP. The P-47 is almost guaranteed to destroy its on engine after 5 minutes of WEP judging by the way they've modeled the P-40. Yes, the real aircraft was often hotrod to extreme manifold pressures and renowned for being a rugged engine.

The P-47 engine was one of the most durable engines in the US arsenal, so I dont see why you think it will be a glass engine like the P-40. Also, the P-47 can run just fine, up high it will be fine but down low it will be vulnerable. It can also outdive everything but the 262 so as long as the Jug pilot is smart he can avoid most fights if he wants. He can also outroll everything but the 190 so thats also a good advantage.

The P-47 is almost guaranteed to destroy its on engine after 5 minutes of WEP judging by the way they've modeled the P-40. Yes, the real aircraft was often hotrod to extreme manifold pressures and renowned for being a rugged engine. Yes I agree, but the advantages of the P-47 that were once prominent vs the G6 and A6/8 are nullified by the K4 and D9. Also bodenplatte takes place on the deck so the P-47 is inherently at a disadvantage.

November 23, 2017

I

Well that's extremely unfortunate.

P-47D at 2600HP not 2300HP, this isn't early 1944. Rugged yes, but 30mm doesn't really care what its shooting at .

The P-47 will be a very competitive appoint against the G-14 and A-8. However the D9 and K4 tell a different story. Unless the servers limit the access of D9s and K4s by a significant margin than the P-47 will be vastly out classed. Regarding P/W ratio, Fw-190A8s 0.189hp/lb vs P-47Ds 0.204hp/lb, I'm not exactly sure what the Fw-190's exhaust thrust is in HP. The P-47 is almost guaranteed to destroy its on engine after 5 minutes of WEP judging by the way they've modeled the P-40. Yes, the real aircraft was often hotrod to extreme manifold pressures and renowned for being a rugged engine.

The P-47 is almost guaranteed to destroy its on engine after 5 minutes of WEP judging by the way they've modeled the P-40. Yes, the real aircraft was often hotrod to extreme manifold pressures and renowned for being a rugged engine. Yes I agree, but the advantages of the P-47 that were once prominent vs the G6 and A6/8 are nullified by the K4 and D9. Also bodenplatte takes place on the deck so the P-47 is inherently at a disadvantage.

Idk, judging by how the luft pilots like to fly high now, I think they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to bodenplatte. We'll have P-51 and P-47 up high to push the luft pilots down and we'll have the Tempest to deal with them down low. I think Luft pilots will be getting squeezed a bit.

November 23, 2017

I'd imagine a D-28 or D-30.

The P-47 in bodenplatte is the equivalent of the P-40 in BoM/BoS. Great firepower(~30 seconds of 50 cals spraying), can't run, can't climb and the Infamous engine destruction after 30 seconds of use. Ah yes, the plane where you can destroy your engine faster than an enemy can destroy it by bombarding 20mm HE into it. This is the absolute worst time to be flying a P-47 in Europe, low altitude combat against Me-262 K4s and D9s. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the P-47, but there is no reason to get all hyped about its performance.

The ignorance is strong on this one.

November 23, 2017

I

Idk, judging by how the luft pilots like to fly high now, I think they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to bodenplatte. We'll have P-51 and P-47 up high to push the luft pilots down and we'll have the Tempest to deal with them down low. I think Luft pilots will be getting squeezed a bit.

Thats a good point I totally forgot about the Tempest's godly low altitude performance.

The ignorance is strong on this one.

Not an argument. Feel free to try again.

November 24, 2017

Will we have the paddle blade prop?

November 24, 2017

Well that's extremely unfortunate.

P-47D at 2600HP not 2300HP, this isn't early 1944. Rugged yes, but 30mm doesn't really care what its shooting at .

The P-47 will be a very competitive appoint against the G-14 and A-8. However the D9 and K4 tell a different story. Unless the servers limit the access of D9s and K4s by a significant margin than the P-47 will be vastly out classed. Regarding P/W ratio, Fw-190A8s 0.189hp/lb vs P-47Ds 0.204hp/lb, I'm not exactly sure what the Fw-190's exhaust thrust is in HP. The P-47 is almost guaranteed to destroy its on engine after 5 minutes of WEP judging by the way they've modeled the P-40. Yes, the real aircraft was often hotrod to extreme manifold pressures and renowned for being a rugged engine.

The P-47 is almost guaranteed to destroy its on engine after 5 minutes of WEP judging by the way they've modeled the P-40. Yes, the real aircraft was often hotrod to extreme manifold pressures and renowned for being a rugged engine. Yes I agree, but the advantages of the P-47 that were once prominent vs the G6 and A6/8 are nullified by the K4 and D9. Also bodenplatte takes place on the deck so the P-47 is inherently at a disadvantage.

If they use rpm and manifold pressure and code „hard“ limits from these, for sure. Any engine capable of producing „1 minute XY power“ will blow up after said minute. It is an implementation strategy that has some merits, but on the otherhand also caveats that for sure will make the devs give it another look.

One thing about the P-47 WEP, it is for sure something like 5 minutes, because after 5 minutes your water tank will be empty. At that point, the engine has to further enrich the mixture to keep it from predetonating. This means shaft power will drop at least 10% after you‘re out of water, while you see absolutely no change in manifold pressure. But the 109 on your tail will see your black exhaust smoke and be happy knowing that you just became a better victim. Thus the last couple of psi MAP are of not much use anyway if you‘re out of water.

If the devs make a great job in implementing turbo operation, a lot of peeps will cry because most will kill their turbo right away. It is not trivial to operate unless below critical altitude of the low blower and you can leave it on a safe setting. But even then, operating it such to minimize fuel consumption is a nice task in itself. If you manage economy, then you also manage power.

November 24, 2017

Can't see how this is going to be the case? I thought both the 109 and the 190 had higher wing loading (much more in the 190's case) and while the Tempest is a bit heavier it has got hundreds more horsepower to pull it round a turn? Enlighten me please

Those characteristics define the sustained turn rate, not the instantaneous turn rate. Isntantaneous turn rate depends on MAX instantaneous AOA airframe instability and inertia. The german planes being MUCH smaller have much less inertia , therefore relatively more efficient effect of elevator (if it can be deflected considering that issue with the 109). The mass distribution relative to the center of lift of both the wing and elevators also matter. At the very end turning is somethign complex.

When you turn for too long although the second law of thermodynamics win and energy bleeding is so high that your performance is constrained by how much energy your engine can put back into the system.

The P-47 engine was one of the most durable engines in the US arsenal, so I dont see why you think it will be a glass engine like the P-40. Also, the P-47 can run just fine, up high it will be fine but down low it will be vulnerable. It can also outdive everything but the 262 so as long as the Jug pilot is smart he can avoid most fights if he wants. He can also outroll everything but the 190 so thats also a good advantage.

The hard part for the 190 on some server is to gain enough HEIGHT before reaching combat zone (since the plane is NOT an exceptional low speed climber). In game the time to enemy contact is shorter than in most P47 real life.

November 24, 2017

The hard part for the 190 on some server is to gain enough HEIGHT before reaching combat zone (since the plane is NOT an exceptional low speed climber). In game the time to enemy contact is shorter than in most P47 real life.

Circle Climb until you get altitude. Thats what my friends and I do before we go to the frontline.

November 24, 2017

Circle Climb until you get altitude. Thats what my friends and I do before we go to the frontline.

I am an oldman! I do not have all that time to spare!!!

November 24, 2017

If they use rpm and manifold pressure and code „hard“ limits from these, for sure. Any engine capable of producing „1 minute XY power“ will blow up after said minute. It is an implementation strategy that has some merits, but on the otherhand also caveats that for sure will make the devs give it another look.

One thing about the P-47 WEP, it is for sure something like 5 minutes, because after 5 minutes your water tank will be empty. At that point, the engine has to further enrich the mixture to keep it from predetonating. This means shaft power will drop at least 10% after you‘re out of water, while you see absolutely no change in manifold pressure. But the 109 on your tail will see your black exhaust smoke and be happy knowing that you just became a better victim. Thus the last couple of psi MAP are of not much use anyway if you‘re out of water.

If the devs make a great job in implementing turbo operation, a lot of peeps will cry because most will kill their turbo right away. It is not trivial to operate unless below critical altitude of the low blower and you can leave it on a safe setting. But even then, operating it such to minimize fuel consumption is a nice task in itself. If you manage economy, then you also manage power.

I think it was 5 min at a time for a total of 10 min. From what I've read the Jug had a 15 gal tank and that would last for a total of 10 or so minutes before running out.

November 24, 2017

I think it was 5 min at a time for a total of 10 min. From what I've read the Jug had a 15 gal tank and that would last for a total of 10 or so minutes before running out.

You are correct. I checked the documentations. It is 15 gal for about 10 mins of use.

What is really of note, is that using ADI (water) during this whole period is not likely to damage your engine UNLESS your carb temperature is too high. (Cylinder head of course as well.)

This is the one feature I love so much about turbocharged planes. You have the intercooler as well as the turbo rpm to regulate your mixture intake temperature. This means by propper matching throttle and turbo lever, you can set your desired mixture temperature while you leave the intercooler in "normal" setting, where it still cools but produces least drag. Opening the intercooler really only shows that you are unable to operate your engine or that you are seriously on the operating limits.

As the engine can well stand the load of 2600 hp output without damage, the only thing you can screw up is excessive mixture temperature (excessive torque would reduce engine lifetime, but most likely not to a degree that it would fail during your flight if you started out with a new enigine).

So there is absolutely no reason to include a timer. But mixture temperature vs. MAP surely should be punitive. As well as flying with the turbo lever ahead of the throttle lever, things like that. Given that in the real aircraft, the turbo lever response can be described as "overly strong" towards the end of lever travel, this might happen faster than one might think. But as turbo behavior is not trivial to simulate, we will probably get a benign turbo there.

November 24, 2017

You are correct. I checked the documentations. It is 15 gal for about 10 mins of use.

What is really of note, is that using ADI (water) during this whole period is not likely to damage your engine UNLESS your carb temperature is too high. (Cylinder head of course as well.)

This is the one feature I love so much about turbocharged planes. You have the intercooler as well as the turbo rpm to regulate your mixture intake temperature. This means by propper matching throttle and turbo lever, you can set your desired mixture temperature while you leave the intercooler in "normal" setting, where it still cools but produces least drag. Opening the intercooler really only shows that you are unable to operate your engine or that you are seriously on the operating limits.

As the engine can well stand the load of 2600 hp output without damage, the only thing you can screw up is excessive mixture temperature (excessive torque would reduce engine lifetime, but most likely not to a degree that it would fail during your flight if you started out with a new enigine).

So there is absolutely no reason to include a timer. But mixture temperature vs. MAP surely should be punitive. As well as flying with the turbo lever ahead of the throttle lever, things like that. Given that in the real aircraft, the turbo lever response can be described as "overly strong" towards the end of lever travel, this might happen faster than one might think. But as turbo behavior is not trivial to simulate, we will probably get a benign turbo there.

While I don't expect DCS level of fidelity I do hope they will model the engine and turbo to a decent level of accuracy.

November 24, 2017

If they use rpm and manifold pressure and code „hard“ limits from these, for sure. Any engine capable of producing „1 minute XY power“ will blow up after said minute. It is an implementation strategy that has some merits, but on the otherhand also caveats that for sure will make the devs give it another look.

One thing about the P-47 WEP, it is for sure something like 5 minutes, because after 5 minutes your water tank will be empty. At that point, the engine has to further enrich the mixture to keep it from predetonating. This means shaft power will drop at least 10% after you‘re out of water, while you see absolutely no change in manifold pressure. But the 109 on your tail will see your black exhaust smoke and be happy knowing that you just became a better victim. Thus the last couple of psi MAP are of not much use anyway if you‘re out of water.

If the devs make a great job in implementing turbo operation, a lot of peeps will cry because most will kill their turbo right away. It is not trivial to operate unless below critical altitude of the low blower and you can leave it on a safe setting. But even then, operating it such to minimize fuel consumption is a nice task in itself. If you manage economy, then you also manage power.

Well lets hope they take another look because it makes for corny gameplay. DCS does a much better job at this.

P-47D-25 had around 12-15 minutes use of ADI. However it is only rated for 5 minutes of WEP at a time. IIRC similar to the Dora which had 40 minutes worth of MW-50 but only rated for 10 minutes at time.

Yeah that'd definitely be interesting. However I haven't heard of any cases in WW2 where pilots were destroying their turbos or over boosting their engines unintentionally. I'd like to see a training for the P-38 and P-47 turbo usage.

November 24, 2017

There are a lot of cases actually of P-38 engine failures. If the pilot forgot to advance the RPM before the throttle, it would blow the engine. Early P-38's were having frequent turbocharger failures, most likely because of improper operation. It was a difficult aircraft for an average pilot to fly in combat because of the lack of automation features. Russian aircraft were similar but they were only single engine, you had to do everything twice on a P-38.

November 25, 2017

November 25, 2017

A fighter pilots story.

https://videoflier.com/movies/1447216328377060038095

November 25, 2017

I've watched those 100x each xD. I'd like to see an IL2 edition.

November 25, 2017

Good footage here of spring 1945. The piano playing while they strafe some random house it's a bit disturbing.

November 25, 2017

Will we have the paddle blade prop?

Yes.

November 28, 2017

I wonder what fuel we will be getting for the Jug and Mustang? Hope we get the later fuel that allowed for a higher boost rating.

November 29, 2017

I wonder what fuel we will be getting for the Jug and Mustang? Hope we get the later fuel that allowed for a higher boost rating.

Probably modeled as a mod for the plane.

November 29, 2017

Incidentally, P-47 lovers might enjoy this talk from RAMJB on the history and myths associated with the P-47.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oNxbyzB_8A

P-47D !!!

Recommended Posts

Legioneod

ShamrockOneFive

ZachariasX

=RvE=SirScorpion

Bullets

bzc3lk

Bullets

von_Tom

ZachariasX

Bullets

DSR_A-24

ZachariasX

Heliopause

Legioneod

clouddancer

DSR_A-24

Legioneod

Jade_Monkey

DSR_A-24

Dennis_Nedry

ZachariasX

VeryOldMan

Legioneod

VeryOldMan

Legioneod

ZachariasX

Legioneod

DSR_A-24

ACG_KaiLae

Legioneod

katdog5

DSR_A-24

Jade_Monkey

Legioneod

Legioneod

VeryOldMan

Tomsk

Please sign in to comment

Browse All

Activity